Good God. Did you read the parent of my post? In fact, did you even read my post? I think I made it clear I know the difference between wafer size and feature size.
If this isn't the most frustrating thread I have ever been involved with, I don't know what it.
What is wrong with people? Why do you just blatantly make stuff up?
300nm does sound right since that is right were the cutting edge is for modern fabs.
Not even close. First, why move from a 200nm process to 300nm? As technology progresses, chip features get smaller, not bigger.
Second, state of the art has been under 200nm for some time now, so 300nm would be a big step backward. For instance, see this article from three years ago touting 130nm, and then this one from over a ago touting 90nm.
300mm definitely does not refer to "wafer (?) slices" whatever the hell that is supposed to mean.
I have no particular response to this; I just find it amusing that you don't know what a wafer is, yet you feel qualified to comment on the "cutting edge for modern fabs".
I just don't see how a highly elliptical orbit is a good thing. (And I also don't see why the elliptical orbit wouldn't need the direction of the power beam to be continually adjusted.)
Developers would need to change keys periodically because it's only a matter of time before they're brute-forced. So how do you distribute the new public keys?
I think you'd be surprised how little software development has changed in 30 years. Check out The Mythical Man-Month and see what things were like in the 1970s. Sure, we tackle larger problems now, but we do it pretty much the same way they did.
Open Source addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use an Open Source over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
Mostly, because there aren't any. Your experiences are not typical.
GPL is "free" as in free beer - its use encourages the distribution of free software. Public domain is "free" as in free speech - no restrictions on how individuals can distribute it. Why is this so hard to understand?
SCO will say that GPLed code cannot be restricted by export controls, thus violates national security laws.
Well that would be bogus. The GPL says if you distribute binary, then you must distribute source. It doesn't say you must distribute the binary. Any individual always has the option not to distribute anything, thereby obeying export laws.
Use your imagination. If the watermark is just a string of some kind, it should be painfully obvious which string it is, and you can just delete it. If the watermark is encoded in the identifiers used, you just search and replace lots of the indentifiers and the watermark is gone. If it's encoded in the whitespace, you just strip all unnecessary whitespace. etc. etc.
If you can think of a source-code watermarking scheme which can't be trivially defeated with search-and-replace, I'll concede the point. The reason the one in the article works is because the code is obfuscated, and that is not suitable for OSS.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand the connection with my post.
If this isn't the most frustrating thread I have ever been involved with, I don't know what it.
Got a reference?
I couldn't find any reference anywhere to the feature size to be used on these 300mm wafers. Is it 90nm?
Second, state of the art has been under 200nm for some time now, so 300nm would be a big step backward. For instance, see this article from three years ago touting 130nm, and then this one from over a ago touting 90nm.
I have no particular response to this; I just find it amusing that you don't know what a wafer is, yet you feel qualified to comment on the "cutting edge for modern fabs".Uh why is the parent a troll? I really couldn't find the license info.
Why is the parent post a troll? I'd really like to know why the "X" method doesn't scale.
Could someone explain to me why the parent is a troll?
Gimme a break.
You hit the nail on the head. Thanks for saying it so I didn't need to.
Doesn't scale?? So each voter needs to mark and count 20 things instead of 1. What's the problem?
I couldn't find license info on the web site. Is it GPL?
Thanks for the explanation. I guess you mean "a total orbital period equal to the Earth's day".
I just don't see how a highly elliptical orbit is a good thing. (And I also don't see why the elliptical orbit wouldn't need the direction of the power beam to be continually adjusted.)
Developers would need to change keys periodically because it's only a matter of time before they're brute-forced. So how do you distribute the new public keys?
I think you'd be surprised how little software development has changed in 30 years. Check out The Mythical Man-Month and see what things were like in the 1970s. Sure, we tackle larger problems now, but we do it pretty much the same way they did.
Someone please mod up parent.
I don't have a senator, you insensitive clod. And I don't live in Tennessee.
Cool! Where can I get a burger that contains an entire cow?
If you can think of a source-code watermarking scheme which can't be trivially defeated with search-and-replace, I'll concede the point. The reason the one in the article works is because the code is obfuscated, and that is not suitable for OSS.